Hiku said:
contestgamer said:
I dislike this false idea of TV personalities representing any brand - they're not. They are famous with millions of viewers. The brand is paying to display themselves to those viewers. So what if the personality is a jerk? They're selling you access to viewers, and it's despicable IMO when brands pretend to have a moral conscience and pull their ads because a TV personality said something they dont like. Brands are amoral. They should shut up and keep paying to display themselves to audiences and stop making moral stands. I guarantee you that all these companies are doing morally questionable things by the truck load as a matter of doing business.
|
Oh, I agree that it's usually not about morals when it comes to money in large scales. But there's a difference between morality and how you want your brand to be represented.
Disney let go of a multibillion dollar deal with McDonalds, not because McDonalds did something bad per say, but because Disney didn't want to be associated with childhood obesity.
I don't think that was much of a morality decision, but rather a brand image decision.
|
Yeah, but this whole issue of brand image has become far more important in the past 2 decades and that's because of mob pressure like what Hoggs is exerting. That's the problem, we have a mob of people making buying decisions based on moral calculations instead of purely on product/value as it has been done in the past.
